Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Its not just "soneone" they choose Eldar AND Space Marines (totally against all fluff) and so Tau are BB with half the armies in the game.

Not exactly. This is the actual Ally Matrix table, after so many changes:



Maybe Tau are BB with the most fielded armies, but... SM codex was launched more than half a year from the Tau codex, while the Eldar one was almost 4 months after it. And by different authors. How could they envision, back then, that allying these armies would dominate the meta? It was a coincidence.

Space wolves blood brothers with the Inquisition? That is About as bad as Tau and space marines being blood brothers...

 Squidbot wrote:

 Thud wrote:
About the word 'allowing'...

"Thud allowed his Fire Warriors to be charged by Squidbot's Space Marines, so he could get in a counter charge with his allied Wraithknight."


If you're so hung up on the allowing business, how do you interpret that? Space Marines cannot assault Tau unless explicitly permitted by the Tau player?


All this discussion around the wording is a bit silly. Clearly the new rules allow (there's that word again) Azrael to turn into a Bloodthirster somehow, and the WD writer was a bit cheeky about it to pretend that the fluff still matters to the Design Studio.

I interpret it in context.
And no, the rules do not clearly allow anything. Because we haven't read them.

"Clearly the new rules allow" does not mean the same as "the rules clearly allow."

 ascended_mike wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, They are discussing what they percieve to be "RULES" based on an article of playtesting from White Dwarf... An article that doesn't provide in depth information regarding how it is the rules work and how they will be balanced out with other changes being made.

You're wrong. They actually saw the rules. "We've been poring over the new edition to give you fantastic coverage next week -- when it goes on pre-order -- but before that we thought we'd let you know about what we reckon are the three most exciting additions to the game."

So they actually saw the new edition - not you.

 Thud wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Thud wrote:
About the word 'allowing'...

"Thud allowed his Fire Warriors to be charged by Squidbot's Space Marines, so he could get in a counter charge with his allied Wraithknight."


If you're so hung up on the allowing business, how do you interpret that? Space Marines cannot assault Tau unless explicitly permitted by the Tau player?


All this discussion around the wording is a bit silly. Clearly the new rules allow (there's that word again) Azrael to turn into a Bloodthirster somehow, and the WD writer was a bit cheeky about it to pretend that the fluff still matters to the Design Studio.

I interpret it in context.
And no, the rules do not clearly allow anything. Because we haven't read them.

"Clearly the new rules allow" does not mean the same as "the rules clearly allow."

Oh come on, now you're just reaching. Arguing the structure of a sentence still doesn't mean you know what the final rules are.
Nothing is clear. It is all open to interpretation at this time. Until you have read the rules you cannot state anything is clearly the case.
I'll leave you to your opinion.

 Shandara wrote:
Maybe 2 years of 6th was just buying time to polish the pancake edition? 7th will the best evah!

I jest, but wouldn't put it past GW to just buy time in this way.

I liked this post the first 4x I read it.

Be thankful gw isnt apple, ios8 releases soon, making ios7 just several months old... I have never heard rage or protests or rallies to boycott Apple over their ios releases being so close together (avg under 1 yr).

Gw new rulebook after 2 years.
It's happening.
Deal with it.
It is what it is.
Move on.
Like we say in the army "Drive on with a hard on!"

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Won't 30K use the same rules edition, so will be 7th as well?

30K has never used the 40K FOC. There's a unique Heresy era FOC, and there's no reason this should change with a new edition. I think we can also rely on FW to spare us loyalists summoning daemons.

 Squidbot wrote:

 Thud wrote:

 Squidbot wrote:

 Thud wrote:
About the word 'allowing'...

"Thud allowed his Fire Warriors to be charged by Squidbot's Space Marines, so he could get in a counter charge with his allied Wraithknight."


If you're so hung up on the allowing business, how do you interpret that? Space Marines cannot assault Tau unless explicitly permitted by the Tau player?


All this discussion around the wording is a bit silly. Clearly the new rules allow (there's that word again) Azrael to turn into a Bloodthirster somehow, and the WD writer was a bit cheeky about it to pretend that the fluff still matters to the Design Studio.

I interpret it in context.
And no, the rules do not clearly allow anything. Because we haven't read them.

"Clearly the new rules allow" does not mean the same as "the rules clearly allow."

Oh come on, now you're just reaching. Arguing the structure of a sentence still doesn't mean you know what the final rules are.
Nothing is clear. It is all open to interpretation at this time. Until you have read the rules you cannot state anything is clearly the case.
I'll leave you to your opinion.

Arguing the structure of a sentence is just reaching? Lol. Isn't that what you've been doing for the last ten pages?

And I was clarifying my sentence, which you misinterpreted in your response.

The WD article states that the WD team has had access to the new rules, and then they present the changes they are most excited about. In a game testing out the new rules, one dude turns Azrael into a Bloodthirster.

What's not to get?

CWZ has a point in that WD tends to get a bunch of stuff wrong, so there's a definite possibility that they messed up and that the "good" armies can't get the naughty daemon powers.

But this is a rumour thread, and the information presented to us clearly states that "good" guys can make daemons. And even considering WD's usual grasp of the rules, it's rather more certain than whatever natfka comes out with.

In the end, we have a WD scan that clearly shows you can summon/turn into/whatever daemons.

Okay here's the thing. You don't need rules to make exceptions for special cases - people have done that for years. You don't need a rule for casual/narrative/scenario games to allow something cool.

This is the fundamental disconnect coming from GW: They claim that 40k is meant for narrative play where you talk to your opponent beforehand. In that case, you don't need a plethora of special rules. You don't need the rules to say that Space Marines can summon daemons, because if it fits the story just do it a la that description in WD. It doesn't matter if the "rules" say you can't, if the game is meant for narrative play. Chaos can't field Knights, even though there's an entire knightly house mentioned in the fluff as falling to Slaanesh (House Devine)? Okay, so if you want to field a Knight as Chaos clear it with your opponent. That's narrative.

And herein lies the rub. The only place that actually needs concise and clear rules is competitive/tournament play, which GW has disavowed entirely and even show outright contempt for. Narrative gamers don't need to be told what they can or can't do, only competitive gamers which GW claims 40k isn't meant for.

They can't have both without failing miserably, which they seem to be doing. By having all these rules/restrictions/guidelines they prevent the very narrative play they claim to want, and true narrative play didn't need to be explicitly told those guidelines anyways, while their lack of balance for the sake of "cool" actively hurts competitive play.

This is why they needed to have a rules framework that's pluggable, with every special rule being something that could fit into that framework so it'd be trivially easy to come up with your own special rules by basing it on an existing rule.

 Thud wrote:

Arguing the structure of a sentence is just reaching? Lol. Isn't that what you've been doing for the last ten pages?

No, I've been pointing out what people have been ignoring.

 Thud wrote:

And I was clarifying my sentence, which you misinterpreted in your response.

No misrepresentation, nothing is clear about the rules.

 Thud wrote:

The WD article states that the WD team has had access to the new rules, and then they present the changes they are most excited about. In a game testing out the new rules, one dude turns Azrael into a Bloodthirster.

What's not to get?

CWZ has a point in that WD tends to get a bunch of stuff wrong, so there's a definite possibility that they messed up and that the "good" armies can't get the naughty daemon powers.

But this is a rumour thread, and the information presented to us clearly states that "good" guys can make daemons. And even considering WD's usual grasp of the rules, it's rather more certain than whatever natfka comes out with.

In the end, we have a WD scan that clearly shows you can summon/turn into/whatever daemons.

And there's absolutely no room for interpretation at all, no chance that people are reading too much into the article based on just a relatively small amount of information and everything is totally clear about the rules, and no possibility whatsoever that the WD team were just having a laugh.


If you really don't get my point then I can't be bothered debating this with you further. Carry on.

Well back to the rumored price point. 25% more. Well do we know if we are getting more? I liked the 6th edition book way more than the fifth, fourth, and third edition books.

I heard that it was multiple separate books. Well that sounds like added value to me. Leave the fluff books at home and just take the rules with you. Well now I don't need the little rulebook.

For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

 Leth wrote:
Well back to the rumored price point. 25% more. Well do we know if we are getting more?

I heard that it was multiple separate books. Well that sounds like added value to me. Leave the fluff books at home and just take the rules with you. Well now I don't need the little rulebook.

For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

I think the $100 USD price tag is speculation or cynicism talking.

 Leth wrote:
For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

ITYM "neutral or positive guesses". We can make assumptions based on past precedent that the book won't change much - they'll just charge 25% more for it.

 Leth wrote:
Well back to the rumored price point. 25% more. Well do we know if we are getting more? I liked the 6th edition book way more than the fifth, fourth, and third edition books.

I heard that it was multiple separate books. Well that sounds like added value to me. Leave the fluff books at home and just take the rules with you. Well now I don't need the little rulebook.

For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

It doesn't matter if the new edition has a gold flake cover, the point is still the same- the cost barrier of entry continues to rise at a significant rate.

There is no pessimism or optimism on the lifespan of the 6th edition, it has lasted literally half the time of any previous edition. Compounded with the higher cost of the 7th (no matter what awesomeness it could possibly be), and I don't think there is any way to say this is....er, great news.

EDIT: the $99 pricepoint was a rumor somewhere, that's what I'm going off of. If it doesn't end up being $100, then great. However it has still only been 2 years.

 ascended_mike wrote:

GW has always operated with a strict radio silence approach, I don't know why, but it has clearly worked for them so far.
Perhaps this only makes people even more keen to find out the info? They hype built up from it is likely to propell sales.

Yes, except for the fact that GW has not always operated with a strict radio silence approach.

They used to host seminars at their own events (and others) where they would discuss upcoming releases. They used to put previews of upcoming things on their web site and magazine (and not the week before release).

In fact, their wholly owned subsidiary, Forge World, still does these things.

I'll grant you that this is the way that GW has operated for the last few years (incidentally, a few years which have seen their share price drop and their market share drop), but it is emphatically NOT the way that GW 'has always' operated.

 Leth wrote:
For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

The pessimistic scenarios are mostly based on GW's history. The neutral or positive ones are mostly being hopeful that GW rises above their typical state.

This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

Sorry but we've had to remove this image.

Reds8n

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

It says "in a desperate alliance." Unless White Dwarf has suddenly gotten clever in giving hints - and I don't think it has - I'd wager that's just poor word choice rather than an indication of new ally status.

 infinite_array wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

It says "in a desperate alliance." Unless White Dwarf has suddenly gotten clever in giving hints - and I don't think it has - I'd wager that's just poor word choice rather than an indication of new ally status.

Maybe so - but it's an odd choice of words unless it's purposely misleading.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

This I like! No more Batman and Centurions jumping around.

Hopefully, allies will be turned into something that's no longer an auto-include.

 Accolade wrote:

 Leth wrote:
Well back to the rumored price point. 25% more. Well do we know if we are getting more? I liked the 6th edition book way more than the fifth, fourth, and third edition books.

I heard that it was multiple separate books. Well that sounds like added value to me. Leave the fluff books at home and just take the rules with you. Well now I don't need the little rulebook.

For every pessimistic scenario you create and fill in the gaps of unknowns it is equally as easy to fill in the gaps with neutral or positive information.

It doesn't matter if the new edition has a gold flake cover, the point is still the same- the cost barrier of entry continues to rise at a significant rate.

There is no pessimism or optimism on the lifespan of the 6th edition, it has lasted literally half the time of any previous edition. Compounded with the higher cost of the 7th (no matter what awesomeness it could possibly be), and I don't think there is any way to say this is....er, great news.

EDIT: the $99 pricepoint was a rumor somewhere, that's what I'm going off of. If it doesn't end up being $100, then great. However it has still only been 2 years.

It may have lasted half the time sure, it may have been more expensive? Sure. Just because you are not getting as much value, does not mean that it was not worth it. Do I wish I had gotten more time out of 6th? Possibly, it depends. I didnt like 5th it was not fun for me. I am enjoying 6th WAY more than I did 5th. Now, 6th has its issues and if by them releasing 7th in a shorter time frame and I enjoy it WAY more than 6th I am failing to see how that is less value for me? While money is finite, my time is even more finite, if I have to spend a little extra to get more enjoyment out of something I have no problem doing so. This is not a cheap hobby to buy new, but there are plenty of ways to keep your costs down.

Also Micro-econ 101. If something is worth more in returns than you are spending on it, makes sense to buy it. If it isnt, then you dont. GW made no promises about how long an edition would last. Now if they changed it every week then the returns would not equal the investments and people would stop buying. But I have no problems with a 2 year cycle. I get more out of my rulebook per dollar every year than I do almost anything else I buy. I mean one rulebook is less than two tanks of gas.

 infinite_array wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

It says "in a desperate alliance." Unless White Dwarf has suddenly gotten clever in giving hints - and I don't think it has - I'd wager that's just poor word choice rather than an indication of new ally status.

They can be rather clever at times. We know for sure that the allies matrix was changed, we just don't yet know how it was changed.

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

That's interesting indeed. Anymore where that came from?

 Leth wrote:
I mean one rulebook is less than two tanks of gas.

And the rulebook is infinitely more expensive than a breath of air.

How about you compare the worth of the 40k rulebook to other wargaming/rpg rulebooks instead?

 Accolade wrote:

It doesn't matter if the new edition has a gold flake cover, the point is still the same- the cost barrier of entry continues to rise at a significant rate.

There is no pessimism or optimism on the lifespan of the 6th edition, it has lasted literally half the time of any previous edition. Compounded with the higher cost of the 7th (no matter what awesomeness it could possibly be), and I don't think there is any way to say this is....er, great news. .

so then you consider the ork codex, that is 4th ed, to be of more value then any other codex, because it has lasted so long.... hey less $ per year! awesome! because everyone was lauding how awesome it was to only have to buy one ork dex over the past million years and complaining that they had to buy a new SM dex every edition...

The #1 complaint I was hearing pre 6th was about the long wait times between rules/codex updates.

Now we get updates at a good pace to bring everything into the same "era" and people complain non stop that they cant use their codex/BRB for XXXX years.

(and 100% it is not even confirmed your rule book is unusable, combined with FAQ/errata it may very well be usuable still...)

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

That's interesting indeed. Anymore where that came from?

Other than the jes bickham editorial that was posted a couple days ago that's it. The rest of the issue is focused on wood elves and warzone valedor (which looks awesome from previews.)

The last page says next week they go in depth on "new warhammer 40,000" "daemonology" and "battle forged vs unbound armies"

We should know much more with next weeks leaks.

What happend to the silly Daemon summoning conversation? The thread got all grimdark again last night

WDs are weekly right?

 tetrisphreak wrote:
This from the new white dwarf.

Those who remember pancake edition - the kill points mission awarded VPs based on the points cost of each unit. This hints of a similar mechanic in the new edition. Also note how it lists space marines and tau as "desperate" allies. Very intriguing.

I will say, so far nothing about the battle-forged lists/games seems off putting to me at this point.

Oh Gdub... just one tight and playtested ruleset... please oh please

Haha these posts about defending the price of a product.

GW could make the rulebook cost £300 and you could say it is still acceptable because it costs less than a holiday.

Looking at it again, the Hive Tyrant was worth a possible FOUR Victory points? I wonder if that's in addition to the old secondary objectives (Slay the Warlord).